B6 is not going to die anytime soon. Their growth will just be a little slower and a little more strategic. The big question regarding domestic growth may lie in their direction on the E190s.

They probably missed the sweet spot for entering TATL, but the door is still open. If you think about their two hubs (JFK and BOS), have obviously have great connecting possibilities, large O&D, and strong brand recognition. They will do fine but they will have to battle the ULCC yield game.

Had JetBlue “stayed the course”. With former management team. They would be flying the A330...

stlgph wrote:

That's the problem with jetBlue lovers. They're so invested that "MINT" is a gift from God and is the fail safe future of making everything work.

If jetBlue's hopes and dreams are tied up in offering "MINT," service, they have some huge issues to work through.

Except that mint is a big part of their success and has been the reason they have been able to win so much in the transcon market and also in business markets.

Mint alone has killed vx on bos/fll to lax/sfo markets. Nothing else amongst us domestic carrier comes clos to generating the kind of yields that mint is getting.

And once they start flying to Europe, it's going to really destroy the yield on a lot of these legacy carriers who are dependent on j cabin margins to keeping their frequency high and y prices low.

And they will be able to generate high yield flying JFK to London Dublin Paris Manchester. I don't see how these markets will be any different from transcon routes where JetBlue has been thriving despite very little presence in the west coast cities.

I'll say it again.

If jetBlue's hopes and dreams are entirely tied up in offering "MINT" service, they have some huge issues to work through.

stlgph wrote:

I'll say it again.

If jetBlue's hopes and dreams are entirely tied up in offering "MINT" service, they have some huge issues to work through.

Bos-dtw/atl/cle/bwi/D.C./bna etc
Jfk-sdq/uvf/sti/pos/pap/P.R/bgi etc
Fll-bna/bgi/uio/bog/mde/lim/sjo etc

Your claims are pure fiction. All those routes are just a mere small smattering of some of the most successful routes where they command a premium yield. They have the biggest and most robust network of code shares that also help. I.e. Bos-dtw is one of the most successful because it began the day EK began bos service and it coincided with connections to dtw. That's just one example. Azul codeshare in its Florida focus cities is taking shape that's also currently beginning to reap benefits and when B6 eventually goes with LR and bigger metal into South America I can see a joint venture aka dl/am/va with them in Brazil to expand their network and with the other neeleman carrier TAP in Portugal to expand E.U. Hayes and needleman have been very chummy chummy lately. They will play the big guys at their own game as soon as B6 starts to reap in benefits to expand internationally to South America and tatl.
So in short, mint is just part of the package plan of ways they will thrive and succeed. Let's not just claim false narratives because your not in B6 camp.

LAX772LR wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

The bigger question is WHY people think we need fewer airlines? Pax have so few options, and the airlines know it.

Perhaps a better question would be why you believe that parroting this will somehow make it true?

AAvgeek744 wrote:

Thus they get screwed.

Please explain how having more people fly than at any time in our history, to more nonstop destinations than at any point in our history, AND at lower fares decade-over-decade than at any time in our history... amounts to pax being "screwed?"

And while doing it, try not to be so predictably daft as to base the argument on seat pitch-- as if nearly every airline doesn't offer multiple choices thereof, if people are willing to pay the market rate for it.

AAvgeek744 wrote:

Four airlines should not control 83% of pax in a nation of 330 Million.

K, then give us a percentage that they "should" be able to control, then explain why that number (somehow) isn't completely arbitrary.

I don't know the US domestic market very well, but the prices seem high compared to Europe (also when distances are accounted for). I could be wrong, but if it's true, and the airlines in the US are making huge profits every year, it doesn't seem like an unreasonable hypothesis that there's lack of competition. Just a theory - I could be very wrong.

B6 has a huge gaping hole in their network. Central America. GUA PTY MGA SAL are some very low hanging fruit especially with their Latin point of sale experience

KICT wrote:

B6 will be gone within 5 years. They are cornered with nowhere to expand.

Highly unlikely given JetBlues success, really a ridiculous statement.
Plenty of markets JetBlue can build up and service if they wanted to--in fact, holes in the network is probably JetBlues biggest problem.

Abeam79 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

I'll say it again.

If jetBlue's hopes and dreams are entirely tied up in offering "MINT" service, they have some huge issues to work through.

Bos-dtw/atl/cle/bwi/D.C./bna etc
Jfk-sdq/uvf/sti/pos/pap/P.R/bgi etc
Fll-bna/bgi/uio/bog/mde/lim/sjo etc

Your claims are pure fiction. All those routes are just a mere small smattering of some of the most successful routes where they command a premium yield. They have the biggest and most robust network of code shares that also help. I.e. Bos-dtw is one of the most successful because it began the day EK began bos service and it coincided with connections to dtw. That's just one example. Azul codeshare in its Florida focus cities is taking shape that's also currently beginning to reap benefits and when B6 eventually goes with LR and bigger metal into South America I can see a joint venture aka dl/am/va with them in Brazil to expand their network and with the other neeleman carrier TAP in Portugal to expand E.U. Hayes and needleman have been very chummy chummy lately. They will play the big guys at their own game as soon as B6 starts to reap in benefits to expand internationally to South America and tatl.
So in short, mint is just part of the package plan of ways they will thrive and succeed. Let's not just claim false narratives because your not in B6 camp.

Yes, airliners.net jetBlue fan boy, my claims are "pure fiction."

First, learn to read. I wrote if jetBlue is putting all its eggs in one basket, i.e., being reliant on MINT service to be its key to the future, then they have problems. Which, face it, it's true. They have to be innovative across all of its product platforms. Any person with half a brain and some business sense could figure out that one. If I came on here saying Polaris by United is going to support and run the whole damn company and take down any competitor, you'd come on here and laugh your face off. Yet, I come on here, jetBlue fanboy, and write jetBlue needs to fine tune its strategy, I'm suddenly "pure fiction." Whatever you say.

Second, learn to spell. It's "you're"

Third, code shares ... great, you mean, the correct term of partner airlines, right? Guess what, nothing new. They've been partnering with every damn airline they can for years. Newsflash sunshine, that didn't exactly turn into the gangbusters you claim or believe it did. Hence why they had to move on to something else to innovative the product platform. Like "MINT." Hmmm, gee, look at that, seems we have a pattern here.

But hey, in the end, what's it matter since you clearly know more than I? Sounds like we really need to get together at the next shareholders meeting. You'll be there as a voting member, too, right?

eal wrote:

KICT wrote:

B6 will be gone within 5 years. They are cornered with nowhere to expand.

Highly unlikely given JetBlues success, really a ridiculous statement.
Plenty of markets JetBlue can build up and service if they wanted to--in fact, holes in the network is probably JetBlues biggest problem.

I disagree. They had plans for 5 A330’s....

stlgph wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

I'll say it again.

If jetBlue's hopes and dreams are entirely tied up in offering "MINT" service, they have some huge issues to work through.

Bos-dtw/atl/cle/bwi/D.C./bna etc
Jfk-sdq/uvf/sti/pos/pap/P.R/bgi etc
Fll-bna/bgi/uio/bog/mde/lim/sjo etc

Your claims are pure fiction. All those routes are just a mere small smattering of some of the most successful routes where they command a premium yield. They have the biggest and most robust network of code shares that also help. I.e. Bos-dtw is one of the most successful because it began the day EK began bos service and it coincided with connections to dtw. That's just one example. Azul codeshare in its Florida focus cities is taking shape that's also currently beginning to reap benefits and when B6 eventually goes with LR and bigger metal into South America I can see a joint venture aka dl/am/va with them in Brazil to expand their network and with the other neeleman carrier TAP in Portugal to expand E.U. Hayes and needleman have been very chummy chummy lately. They will play the big guys at their own game as soon as B6 starts to reap in benefits to expand internationally to South America and tatl.
So in short, mint is just part of the package plan of ways they will thrive and succeed. Let's not just claim false narratives because your not in B6 camp.

Yes, airliners.net jetBlue fan boy, my claims are "pure fiction."

First, learn to read. I wrote if jetBlue is putting all its eggs in one basket, i.e., being reliant on MINT service to be its key to the future, then they have problems. Which, face it, it's true. They have to be innovative across all of its product platforms. Any person with half a brain and some business sense could figure out that one. If I came on here saying Polaris by United is going to support and run the whole damn company and take down any competitor, you'd come on here and laugh your face off. Yet, I come on here, jetBlue fanboy, and write jetBlue needs to fine tune its strategy, I'm suddenly "pure fiction." Whatever you say.

Second, learn to spell. It's "you're"

Third, code shares ... great, you mean, the correct term of partner airlines, right? Guess what, nothing new. They've been partnering with every damn airline they can for years. Newsflash sunshine, that didn't exactly turn into the gangbusters you claim or believe it did. Hence why they had to move on to something else to innovative the product platform. Like "MINT." Hmmm, gee, look at that, seems we have a pattern here.

But hey, in the end, what's it matter since you clearly know more than I? Sounds like we really need to get together at the next shareholders meeting. You'll be there as a voting member, too, right?

But respectfully you keep saying or implying that they are putting all of their hopes in mint.

I don't see how you come up with that. It's a good product and has been used well to create higher margins and if they ever did go over the Atlantic it would be perfect. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't look at that and put some faith in that product. It has allowed them to turn some of the lowest revenue markets into the highest. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Yes they will be doing other things.
https://thepointsguy.com/2017/09/airbus ... pace-a320/
And mint is just a successful part of it.

The funny thing is many people on here and Wall St analysts said it would never work.....huh.

I like to send my vote in by mail. I don't have time for the meetings.

oslmgm wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

The bigger question is WHY people think we need fewer airlines? Pax have so few options, and the airlines know it.

Perhaps a better question would be why you believe that parroting this will somehow make it true?

AAvgeek744 wrote:

Thus they get screwed.

Please explain how having more people fly than at any time in our history, to more nonstop destinations than at any point in our history, AND at lower fares decade-over-decade than at any time in our history... amounts to pax being "screwed?"

And while doing it, try not to be so predictably daft as to base the argument on seat pitch-- as if nearly every airline doesn't offer multiple choices thereof, if people are willing to pay the market rate for it.

AAvgeek744 wrote:

Four airlines should not control 83% of pax in a nation of 330 Million.

K, then give us a percentage that they "should" be able to control, then explain why that number (somehow) isn't completely arbitrary.

I don't know the US domestic market very well, but the prices seem high compared to Europe (also when distances are accounted for). I could be wrong, but if it's true, and the airlines in the US are making huge profits every year, it doesn't seem like an unreasonable hypothesis that there's lack of competition. Just a theory - I could be very wrong.

Europe has too much competition. EU airlines make horrendous risk adjusted returns (if they even turn a profit at all) just like US carriers did in the 90's.

Air travel is a commodity. If the market is flooded, it does nothing but hurt weaker producers as they get addicted to the revenue just to stay alive - lowering prices and hurting other stronger players in the market (graveyard spiral). Consumers get accustomed to unsustainably low prices as a result. As AZ and AB fail in Europe, we will start to see prices rise again, just as they should.

Varsity1 wrote:

Europe has too much competition. EU airlines make horrendous risk adjusted returns (if they even turn a profit at all) just like US carriers did in the 90's.

Air travel is a commodity. If the market is flooded, it does nothing but hurt weaker producers as they get addicted to the revenue just to stay alive - lowering prices and hurting other stronger players in the market (graveyard spiral). Consumers get accustomed to unsustainably low prices as a result. As AZ and AB fail in Europe, we will start to see prices rise again, just as they should.

I disagree with this analysis 100%. If that was true, TPAC would be a graveyard of airlines. The reality is that TATL fares are way too high and AZ and AB failed becausethey're badly managed airlines. Their void is being filled by others and then some. DY, FI, WW are more than making up for the void. Airlines like IB, TP, BA are all expanding their TATL coverage. Every US carrier has already announced new TATL routes for 2018. I really don't know where this myth that TATL is crowded/saturated comes from. The air fares sure don't show it.

airbazar wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

Europe has too much competition. EU airlines make horrendous risk adjusted returns (if they even turn a profit at all) just like US carriers did in the 90's.

Air travel is a commodity. If the market is flooded, it does nothing but hurt weaker producers as they get addicted to the revenue just to stay alive - lowering prices and hurting other stronger players in the market (graveyard spiral). Consumers get accustomed to unsustainably low prices as a result. As AZ and AB fail in Europe, we will start to see prices rise again, just as they should.

I disagree with this analysis 100%. If that was true, TPAC would be a graveyard of airlines. The reality is that TATL fares are way too high and AZ and AB failed becausethey're badly managed airlines. Their void is being filled by others and then some. DY, FI, WW are more than making up for the void. Airlines like IB, TP, BA are all expanding their TATL coverage. Every US carrier has already announced new TATL routes for 2018. I really don't know where this myth that TATL is crowded/saturated comes from. The air fares sure don't show it.

None of the airlines you mentioned are making risk adjusted returns in line with the industry. Airlines are risky business and the returns should correspond to that.

TATL fares are dirt cheap. Flying close to 10,000 miles RT for less than $800 in most instances is dirt cheap.

RWA380 wrote:

All the while the guesses & random stabs got more & more absurd. Last I read, someone wanted put B6 & HA together, using the 321 fleet commonality.. B6 has the most concentrated population centers as their bases & have a strong & strategic route structure, they'll be just fine alone.

AS is still digesting VX, it's not even complete & you want them to acquire B6? Never will that happen. The DOJ is not going to allow it, the carriers are both controlling a large swath of the country & merging the 5th & 6th largest carriers would have 90% of all flights in the USA on only 5 carriers.

B6 being fine alone? We'll see about that. Not really much room for growth there.

And I never said anything about AS and B6 merging right now, I know it wouldn't happen until the early 2020's at the soonest. But frankly, it is in their best interest to do so.

Varsity1 wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

Europe has too much competition. EU airlines make horrendous risk adjusted returns (if they even turn a profit at all) just like US carriers did in the 90's.

Air travel is a commodity. If the market is flooded, it does nothing but hurt weaker producers as they get addicted to the revenue just to stay alive - lowering prices and hurting other stronger players in the market (graveyard spiral). Consumers get accustomed to unsustainably low prices as a result. As AZ and AB fail in Europe, we will start to see prices rise again, just as they should.

I disagree with this analysis 100%. If that was true, TPAC would be a graveyard of airlines. The reality is that TATL fares are way too high and AZ and AB failed becausethey're badly managed airlines. Their void is being filled by others and then some. DY, FI, WW are more than making up for the void. Airlines like IB, TP, BA are all expanding their TATL coverage. Every US carrier has already announced new TATL routes for 2018. I really don't know where this myth that TATL is crowded/saturated comes from. The air fares sure don't show it.

None of the airlines you mentioned are making risk adjusted returns in line with the industry. Airlines are risky business and the returns should correspond to that.

TATL fares are dirt cheap. Flying close to 10,000 miles RT for less than $800 in most instances is dirt cheap.

It's 7000 miles rt from NYC to London. Most Tpac flights are longer and cheaper than that in y.

You are focusing on y fares which have been trashed by the discount airlines, but the j fares are outrageously high you compare to j fares to Asia.
That's where JetBlue can come in and just totally destroy the market for the network carriers.

Again 2000 to 3000 round trip j fare from NYC to London is definitely possible with JetBlue cost structure. And if you factor in transcon flights, you can easily get sub $5000 j fares from sfo/lax/sea to London or Paris, which would actually make some of these flights money loosing for network carriers.

oslmgm wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

The bigger question is WHY people think we need fewer airlines? Pax have so few options, and the airlines know it.

Perhaps a better question would be why you believe that parroting this will somehow make it true?

AAvgeek744 wrote:

Thus they get screwed.

Please explain how having more people fly than at any time in our history, to more nonstop destinations than at any point in our history, AND at lower fares decade-over-decade than at any time in our history... amounts to pax being "screwed?"

And while doing it, try not to be so predictably daft as to base the argument on seat pitch-- as if nearly every airline doesn't offer multiple choices thereof, if people are willing to pay the market rate for it.

AAvgeek744 wrote:

Four airlines should not control 83% of pax in a nation of 330 Million.

K, then give us a percentage that they "should" be able to control, then explain why that number (somehow) isn't completely arbitrary.

I don't know the US domestic market very well, but the prices seem high compared to Europe (also when distances are accounted for). I could be wrong, but if it's true, and the airlines in the US are making huge profits every year, it doesn't seem like an unreasonable hypothesis that there's lack of competition. Just a theory - I could be very wrong.

This is my point. Fares and ancillary fees can get ridiculous. People living in smaller cities often have no choice but pay a ridiculous fare since there is often no competition. Luckily, my two "home" airports have sufficient competition to keep fares low. Regardless of comments made on my original post, I stand by the idea deregulation was a bad idea. Further consolidation will just make it worse. The flying public deserves better than the service levels we pay for, though WN gets a pass from me. They rarely if ever let me down.

eal wrote:

KICT wrote:

B6 will be gone within 5 years. They are cornered with nowhere to expand.

Highly unlikely given JetBlues success, really a ridiculous statement.
Plenty of markets JetBlue can build up and service if they wanted to--in fact, holes in the network is probably JetBlues biggest problem.

I don't know how they would do it, but they need more presence in "fly over" country. They are very east coast centric. Too many transcons are single, red-eyes (which don't bother me). They've got a great operation in the Caribbean.

AAvgeek744 wrote:

I don't know how they would do it, but they need more presence in "fly over" country.

Why do you say that?

fastmover wrote:

stlgph wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

Bos-dtw/atl/cle/bwi/D.C./bna etc
Jfk-sdq/uvf/sti/pos/pap/P.R/bgi etc
Fll-bna/bgi/uio/bog/mde/lim/sjo etc

Your claims are pure fiction. All those routes are just a mere small smattering of some of the most successful routes where they command a premium yield. They have the biggest and most robust network of code shares that also help. I.e. Bos-dtw is one of the most successful because it began the day EK began bos service and it coincided with connections to dtw. That's just one example. Azul codeshare in its Florida focus cities is taking shape that's also currently beginning to reap benefits and when B6 eventually goes with LR and bigger metal into South America I can see a joint venture aka dl/am/va with them in Brazil to expand their network and with the other neeleman carrier TAP in Portugal to expand E.U. Hayes and needleman have been very chummy chummy lately. They will play the big guys at their own game as soon as B6 starts to reap in benefits to expand internationally to South America and tatl.
So in short, mint is just part of the package plan of ways they will thrive and succeed. Let's not just claim false narratives because your not in B6 camp.

Yes, airliners.net jetBlue fan boy, my claims are "pure fiction."

First, learn to read. I wrote if jetBlue is putting all its eggs in one basket, i.e., being reliant on MINT service to be its key to the future, then they have problems. Which, face it, it's true. They have to be innovative across all of its product platforms. Any person with half a brain and some business sense could figure out that one. If I came on here saying Polaris by United is going to support and run the whole damn company and take down any competitor, you'd come on here and laugh your face off. Yet, I come on here, jetBlue fanboy, and write jetBlue needs to fine tune its strategy, I'm suddenly "pure fiction." Whatever you say.

Second, learn to spell. It's "you're"

Third, code shares ... great, you mean, the correct term of partner airlines, right? Guess what, nothing new. They've been partnering with every damn airline they can for years. Newsflash sunshine, that didn't exactly turn into the gangbusters you claim or believe it did. Hence why they had to move on to something else to innovative the product platform. Like "MINT." Hmmm, gee, look at that, seems we have a pattern here.

But hey, in the end, what's it matter since you clearly know more than I? Sounds like we really need to get together at the next shareholders meeting. You'll be there as a voting member, too, right?

But respectfully you keep saying or implying that they are putting all of their hopes in mint.

I don't see how you come up with that. It's a good product and has been used well to create higher margins and if they ever did go over the Atlantic it would be perfect. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't look at that and put some faith in that product. It has allowed them to turn some of the lowest revenue markets into the highest. If it ain't broke don't fix it. Yes they will be doing other things.
https://thepointsguy.com/2017/09/airbus ... pace-a320/
And mint is just a successful part of it.

The funny thing is many people on here and Wall St analysts said it would never work.....huh.

I like to send my vote in by mail. I don't have time for the meetings.

I noticed B6 raised Mint fares across the board - including the new FLL and SAN routes. Bullish sign if you ask me. Let's see if they stick - which I think they will, since most Mint fares are still well below what VX/AS and the Big 4 are offering - especially close-in fares.

tphuang wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

airbazar wrote:

I disagree with this analysis 100%. If that was true, TPAC would be a graveyard of airlines. The reality is that TATL fares are way too high and AZ and AB failed becausethey're badly managed airlines. Their void is being filled by others and then some. DY, FI, WW are more than making up for the void. Airlines like IB, TP, BA are all expanding their TATL coverage. Every US carrier has already announced new TATL routes for 2018. I really don't know where this myth that TATL is crowded/saturated comes from. The air fares sure don't show it.

None of the airlines you mentioned are making risk adjusted returns in line with the industry. Airlines are risky business and the returns should correspond to that.

TATL fares are dirt cheap. Flying close to 10,000 miles RT for less than $800 in most instances is dirt cheap.

It's 7000 miles rt from NYC to London. Most Tpac flights are longer and cheaper than that in y.

You are focusing on y fares which have been trashed by the discount airlines, but the j fares are outrageously high you compare to j fares to Asia.
That's where JetBlue can come in and just totally destroy the market for the network carriers.

Again 2000 to 3000 round trip j fare from NYC to London is definitely possible with JetBlue cost structure. And if you factor in transcon flights, you can easily get sub $5000 j fares from sfo/lax/sea to London or Paris, which would actually make some of these flights money loosing for network carriers.

B6 could afford to charge $999 Mint advance purchase on JFK-LHR, and $2.5k-3k walk-up fares, and still make a boatload of money. The fares would way undercut the Legacies.

The lowest one-way J fare from NYC-LHR is $5.5k on UA out of EWR. It's the same situation a month from now. Seems like there's a lot of room for J fares to come down.

Think about that huge gap in between Y fares and J fares. There are plenty of well-to-do Bostonians and New Yorkers who will pay a little extra to fly Mint, but won't pay what the Legacies are asking for. There is plenty of room to stimulate demand and create a new traveler demographic, just as it has done in some of its current Mint markets.

Norwegian and the other new ULCC transcon players are fighting for the same lower-end market share. B6 doesn't necessarily compete in the same market. As I stated above, B6 has a home field advantage in NYC and BOS, and has shown its ability to successfully compete with ULCC's in the US for years. They have what it takes to pull it off.

Looking down the cabin, B6 have a fantastic opportunity to make meaningful links across the pond.

They codeshare today with MT and DE and the MAN-JFK/BOS services, so if B6 goes across the pond there is a possibility of widening that relationship. MT and DE already have FlyBE on board so a closer bond drops B6 into the possibility of a meaningful onward network and Point of Sale setup.

MT and DE are good partners to have as they aren't the same ULCC type as Norwegian. They have existing tourism businesses and could offer a lot to an expanded alliance with JetBlue.

Midwestindy wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

I don't know how they would do it, but they need more presence in "fly over" country.

Why do you say that?

I don't necessarily have the right answer, but at some point the lack of coverage of major cities in the middle of the country will affect their ability to attract business travelers, especially at BOS. Many business travelers do have to go to places like Minneapolis and Saint Louis from time to time.

amcnd wrote:

Had JetBlue “stayed the course”. With former management team. They would be flying the A330...

Surely you mean the Neeleman regime? No way in hell Barger would have had something like that.

tphuang wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

You should see the amount of anger toward as management from as loyalists regarding the merger.
]

What do you mean?

Sancho99504 wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

KICT wrote:

B6 will be gone within 5 years. They are cornered with nowhere to expand.

LOL
This was said 17 years ago by every major airline hornblower. Yet America west/continental/us air/northwest were supposed to still be relevant, where are those airlines now?
Yet JetBlue still remains and have "cornered" the most relevant high yielding northeast/Florida markets and thriving. That's where the money is, hence why they have industry leading operating margins among their peers. They don't need much of the middle country markets, from the northeast there is plenty p2p markets to anywhere over the Atlantic/South America etc to branch into. Thus why securing a lockdown on jfk/Boston/south Florida was executed smart. This will be their next evolution in the coming years at blue. Robin is a BA exec and brought in a bunch of BA people to take B6 globally. The stage is set, and the next move is to get the aircraft/gates secured. Trust me, Alaska will be coming to B6 and see that they will need to merge with B6 in coming years if they want to be relavant. Mergeing with vx to secure the west and cali was just short term for Alaska, but not long term and B6 will shake up transatlantic like they did with transcontinental with mint.

America West just happens to be the largest airline in the world after taking over US and AA. They're known as American Airlines now.

Wow! Isn't that the truth....when it was all said and done America West bought American and Southwest bought ValuJet.....

Abeam79 wrote:

This was said 17 years ago by every major airline hornblower. Yet America west/continental/us air/northwest were supposed to still be relevant, where are those airlines now?

America West acquired Usairways, then acquired American Airlines. The current America West is called American Airlines.

Continental acquired United Airlines. The current Continental is called United Airlines

Northwest acquired Delta Airlines. The current Northwest is called Delta Airlines.

incitatus wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

This was said 17 years ago by every major airline hornblower. Yet America west/continental/us air/northwest were supposed to still be relevant, where are those airlines now?

America West acquired Usairways, then acquired American Airlines. The current America West is called American Airlines.

Continental acquired United Airlines. The current Continental is called United Airlines

Northwest acquired Delta Airlines. The current Northwest is called Delta Airlines.

Didn't Delta buy NW ?

LotsaRunway wrote:

The big question regarding domestic growth may lie in their direction on the E190s.

I would wager that they will most likely be replaced with the E195-E2.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

incitatus wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

This was said 17 years ago by every major airline hornblower. Yet America west/continental/us air/northwest were supposed to still be relevant, where are those airlines now?

America West acquired Usairways, then acquired American Airlines. The current America West is called American Airlines.

Continental acquired United Airlines. The current Continental is called United Airlines

Northwest acquired Delta Airlines. The current Northwest is called Delta Airlines.

Didn't Delta buy NW ?

incitatus wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

This was said 17 years ago by every major airline hornblower. Yet America west/continental/us air/northwest were supposed to still be relevant, where are those airlines now?

America West acquired Usairways, then acquired American Airlines. The current America West is called American Airlines.

Continental acquired United Airlines. The current Continental is called United Airlines

Northwest acquired Delta Airlines. The current Northwest is called Delta Airlines.

BMWdrvr75 wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

LOL
This was said 17 years ago by every major airline hornblower. Yet America west/continental/us air/northwest were supposed to still be relevant, where are those airlines now?
Yet JetBlue still remains and have "cornered" the most relevant high yielding northeast/Florida markets and thriving. That's where the money is, hence why they have industry leading operating margins among their peers. They don't need much of the middle country markets, from the northeast there is plenty p2p markets to anywhere over the Atlantic/South America etc to branch into. Thus why securing a lockdown on jfk/Boston/south Florida was executed smart. This will be their next evolution in the coming years at blue. Robin is a BA exec and brought in a bunch of BA people to take B6 globally. The stage is set, and the next move is to get the aircraft/gates secured. Trust me, Alaska will be coming to B6 and see that they will need to merge with B6 in coming years if they want to be relavant. Mergeing with vx to secure the west and cali was just short term for Alaska, but not long term and B6 will shake up transatlantic like they did with transcontinental with mint.

America West just happens to be the largest airline in the world after taking over US and AA. They're known as American Airlines now.

Wow! Isn't that the truth....when it was all said and done America West bought American and Southwest bought ValuJet.....

Yes, lets get the semantics straight. Previous poster said that JetBlue would be gone in 5 years. Yes America west/Northwest/Continental are now part of Delta,American,UNited, BUT the name is GONE! If one had said that JetBlue would merge/be bought, then thats different, but the original post said they would be gone, and I think its highly unlikely. If they merge in the future, which is still very likely, you can bet Jetblue name will stick. Its not geo-centered on one area, Ask yourself how the name Alaska will stick and promote itself as the largest carrier in Fort Lauderdale/San Juan/ or the carribean? Or even Hawaiian, its antithetical to the network. I still think its weird Alaska wants to be the "go to airline" for California but has the name of another state. Just saying.

stlgph wrote:

Abeam79 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

I'll say it again.

If jetBlue's hopes and dreams are entirely tied up in offering "MINT" service, they have some huge issues to work through.

Bos-dtw/atl/cle/bwi/D.C./bna etc
Jfk-sdq/uvf/sti/pos/pap/P.R/bgi etc
Fll-bna/bgi/uio/bog/mde/lim/sjo etc

Your claims are pure fiction. All those routes are just a mere small smattering of some of the most successful routes where they command a premium yield. They have the biggest and most robust network of code shares that also help. I.e. Bos-dtw is one of the most successful because it began the day EK began bos service and it coincided with connections to dtw. That's just one example. Azul codeshare in its Florida focus cities is taking shape that's also currently beginning to reap benefits and when B6 eventually goes with LR and bigger metal into South America I can see a joint venture aka dl/am/va with them in Brazil to expand their network and with the other neeleman carrier TAP in Portugal to expand E.U. Hayes and needleman have been very chummy chummy lately. They will play the big guys at their own game as soon as B6 starts to reap in benefits to expand internationally to South America and tatl.
So in short, mint is just part of the package plan of ways they will thrive and succeed. Let's not just claim false narratives because your not in B6 camp.

Yes, airliners.net jetBlue fan boy, my claims are "pure fiction."

First, learn to read. I wrote if jetBlue is putting all its eggs in one basket, i.e., being reliant on MINT service to be its key to the future, then they have problems. Which, face it, it's true. They have to be innovative across all of its product platforms. Any person with half a brain and some business sense could figure out that one. If I came on here saying Polaris by United is going to support and run the whole damn company and take down any competitor, you'd come on here and laugh your face off. Yet, I come on here, jetBlue fanboy, and write jetBlue needs to fine tune its strategy, I'm suddenly "pure fiction." Whatever you say.

Second, learn to spell. It's "you're"

Third, code shares ... great, you mean, the correct term of partner airlines, right? Guess what, nothing new. They've been partnering with every damn airline they can for years. Newsflash sunshine, that didn't exactly turn into the gangbusters you claim or believe it did. Hence why they had to move on to something else to innovative the product platform. Like "MINT." Hmmm, gee, look at that, seems we have a pattern here.

But hey, in the end, what's it matter since you clearly know more than I? Sounds like we really need to get together at the next shareholders meeting. You'll be there as a voting member, too, right?

Oh I'm sorry, you must be in the inner know of their performance. I know they fill up about 6 A320's a day on just the feed of passengers they get from their codeshares alone. So it may not be "gangbusters" Mr. Airline Doc, but its a surely a success.
But your all set on your confirmation bias apparently. You KNOW FOR SURE cause "lets face it, its true" uh ok. What if I tell you that Polaris by UA is a complete rebranding of their premium product because they don't really care about the long haul premium product, but the unbundled fares in crammed Y class is just there cause it brings in heavy margins beyond just price matching the ULCC. Polaris is just UA's afterthought, and not exactly a revenue driver like Mint is to JetBlue. Lets just face it, its true.

santi319 wrote:

JBLUA320 wrote:

But if not TATL from BOS, or perhaps alongside, I'd expect to see a big South America push from FLL/MCO using the A321 LR to start giving LATAM and Azul a run for their money. JetBlue has been posturing FLL to be its gateway to the south. Now, the LR will allow them to penetrate much further than before, and having Mint as an option will preserve the yield.

I thought you had some valid points until I read this.. Do you seriously think a B6 mint 321 from FLL is ANY competition to Azuls, Avianca's 330s, Latam's 777-300 from MIA???? Even Gol left the market.

Yes, I do.

AA has ran away from JetBlue every time they compete - reference Puerto Rico and the Dominican. GOL doesn't/didn't have the right audience base or equipment on the US side. A full Mint cabin with healthy yield will provide for a lot of wiggle room in the back.

Time will tell - but it's not about aircraft size, it's about product, price, and proposition. If it was about aircraft size, the TATL 757s that AA/DL/EI/UA run would have failed long ago.

Varsity1 wrote:

TATL fares are dirt cheap. Flying close to 10,000 miles RT for less than $800 in most instances is dirt cheap.

Wah? Where? I live in Boston. With the exception of IST, we're talking 3,500nm each way at most. BOS-LIS is only 500nm longer than BOS-LAX and i'm looking at over $1000 for Xmas as the cheapest fare. Sorry but that's not cheap. just this past Summer I went on vacation to California with my family. For BOS-LAX on B6 we paid $350pp. Let me know which TATL route you can fly on for a comparable price in the Summer.

LAX772LR wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

The DOJ is not going to allow it

The DOJ doesn't have the authority to "not allow it"... that rests solely with the DOT.

If the DOT allows it, which it almost always does, then all the DOJ can do is sue in court if pursued. There's absolutely no guarantee that they'll win, and if the merger is wanted badly enough, then a legal battle (should concessions fail) is just seen as a necessary expense.

Granted, many carriers don't want the expense, and it could dissuade them from pursuing (e.g. UA/US). But the DOJ can't mechanically stop them.

Heck! AS absorbing JBLU makes a much sense as UAL absorbing JBLU, NONE!! If you're coming up with stupid Ideas?? Here's one!!
United Merging with JBLU just to get a JFK terminal and an east coast North south Network to match the west coast North South network!!
How's that for stupid?? if that's what you're going for...

jetBlue could add nonstop service from DFW to JFK, FLL, and MCO. jetBlue would be able to provide connections from DFW to international destinations through FLL if it added DFW-FLL nonstop service, including to international destinations that Southwest Airlines does not serve.

I’m in the JetBlue should stay camp. I’ve never flown them, but I’m itching to try it out. If they could expand into the Midwest, I’d fly them a hell of a lot more.

Once the a321Lr comes to them, It’s obvious that tatl will happen.

Same here. I'm on the West Coast, so there isn't as much of an opportunity to fly them, if any, given where I usually vacation to (Alaska, Hawaii, out West...). However, were they to expand their route network significantly into long haul desitnations, then yes, I'd love to try another airline.

Bob

My bets on the fleet:

Current:

E190
A320
A321
A321M

Future:

E195 E2 - Replacing E190 and some older A320s
A320ceo/neo - I'm guessing the neos will replace older planes in the years ahead
A321ceo/Mint
A321neo/LR

LAX772LR wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

The DOJ is not going to allow it

The DOJ doesn't have the authority to "not allow it"... that rests solely with the DOT.

If the DOT allows it, which it almost always does, then all the DOJ can do is sue in court if pursued. There's absolutely no guarantee that they'll win, and if the merger is wanted badly enough, then a legal battle (should concessions fail) is just seen as a necessary expense.

Granted, many carriers don't want the expense, and it could dissuade them from pursuing (e.g. UA/US). But the DOJ can't mechanically stop them.

+1...and I'll add...how many airline mergers have ACTUALLY been stopped by the US government? = ZERO

jplatts wrote:

jetBlue could add nonstop service from DFW to JFK, FLL, and MCO. jetBlue would be able to provide connections from DFW to international destinations through FLL if it added DFW-FLL nonstop service, including to international destinations that Southwest Airlines does not serve.

I see little demand to fly DFW-FLL/MCO-Latin America. Seems like a huge detour.
B6 already flies DFW-BOS so that would at least make some sense for passenger to fly DFW-BOS-Europe.

airbazar wrote:

jplatts wrote:

jetBlue could add nonstop service from DFW to JFK, FLL, and MCO. jetBlue would be able to provide connections from DFW to international destinations through FLL if it added DFW-FLL nonstop service, including to international destinations that Southwest Airlines does not serve.

I see little demand to fly DFW-FLL/MCO-Latin America. Seems like a huge detour.
B6 already flies DFW-BOS so that would at least make some sense for passenger to fly DFW-BOS-Europe.

True, although there are some routings where flowing over FLL makes perfect sense - NAS, SJU, BGI to name a few.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=DFW-FLL-NA ... FW-FLL-BGI

I also think O&D alone - from FLL point of sale - should be enough to fill up at least 1 flight per day.